Sensor, Filter, and Fusion Models with Rough Petri Nets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers models of sensors, filters, and sensor fusion with Petri nets defined in the context of rough sets. Sensors and filters are fundamental computational units in the design of systems. The intent of this work is to construct Petri nets to simulate conditional computation in approximate reasoning systems, which are dependent on filtered input from selected sensors considered relevant in problem solving. In this paper, coloured Petri nets provide a computational framework for the definition of a family of Petri nets based on rough set theory. Sensors are modeled with what are known as receptor processes in rough Petri nets. Filters are modeled as Lukasiewicz guards on some transitions in rough Petri nets. A Lukasiewicz guard is defined in the context of multivalued logic. Lukasiewicz guards are useful in culling from a collection of active sensors those sensors with the greatest relevance in a problem-solving effort such as classification of a perceived phenomenon in the environment of an agent. The relevance of a sensor is computed using a discrete rough integral. The form of sensor fusion considered in this paper consists in selecting only those sensors considered relevant in solving a problem. The contribution of this paper is the modeling of sensors, filters, and fusion in the context of receptor processes, Lukasiewicz guards, and rough integration, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".